No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known — that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection,” Sen. Paul said.

“The right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence and ensuring this is upheld is the Constitutional duty of all Members of Congress,” he added.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.[4]

Judith Jarvis Thomson famously postulated this as an analogue for abortion when the pregnancy is a result of rape. (although the same logic can apply to all abortions) that the use of someone else's body as a means for your own sustenance is a kindness provided by that person, and not your right.

This thought experiment need only be altered slightly to apply to questions about who "gets a say" about maintaining or terminating a pregnancy. Suppose, you and your buddy, after listening to this violinist's music decide that you really want the violinist to live, and your buddy happens to have the right blood type. So you go to the violinist and offer to hook him up, and of course he accepts. By that evening, your buddy is hooked up to the violinist and all is good. Of course, two weeks later... Your buddy is getting sick every morning due the extra work put on his kidneys, and hates dragging this violinist around with him everywhere. He decides he no longer wants this burden. Now, should your buddy have to ask your permission to unhook himself?

That doesn't make sense to me. I think a human being starts when the fetus becomes developed enough to be an "unborn baby." And I don't think I'm out of line. I just seriously doubt that if you showed a zygote to a random person they'd voluntarily say "oh yeah, that's clearly a human being."

It certainly doesn't have the qualities necessary to take advantage of any rights. It borders on non sense to even talk about it in those terms. But I don't want to go too far down that road, because as I've said before... All roads are empty when you start down the teleological.

Judith Jarvis Thomson famously postulated this as an analogue for abortion when the pregnancy is a result of rape. (although the same logic can apply to all abortions) that the use of someone else's body as a means for your own sustenance is a kindness provided by that person, and not your right.

This thought experiment need only be altered slightly to apply to questions about who "gets a say" about maintaining or terminating a pregnancy. Suppose, you and your buddy, after listening to this violinist's music decide that you really want the violinist to live, and your buddy happens to have the right blood type. So you go to the violinist and offer to hook him up, and of course he accepts. By that evening, your buddy is hooked up to the violinist and all is good. Of course, two weeks later... Your buddy is getting sick every morning due the extra work put on his kidneys, and hates dragging this violinist around with him everywhere. He decides he no longer wants this burden. Now, should your buddy have to ask your permission to unhook himself?

The analogy fails because the person in question had no part in making the violinist. Said person engaged in no act that was responsible for creating the musician's life, therefore he is not responsible for what happens to him.

When people have kids they are responsible for their well being and up bringing because they are the ones who put the kids on the planet.

There is a giant gap in this violinist reasoning.

__________________
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."

Judith Jarvis Thomson famously postulated this as an analogue for abortion when the pregnancy is a result of rape. (although the same logic can apply to all abortions) that the use of someone else's body as a means for your own sustenance is a kindness provided by that person, and not your right.

This thought experiment need only be altered slightly to apply to questions about who "gets a say" about maintaining or terminating a pregnancy. Suppose, you and your buddy, after listening to this violinist's music decide that you really want the violinist to live, and your buddy happens to have the right blood type. So you go to the violinist and offer to hook him up, and of course he accepts. By that evening, your buddy is hooked up to the violinist and all is good. Of course, two weeks later... Your buddy is getting sick every morning due the extra work put on his kidneys, and hates dragging this violinist around with him everywhere. He decides he no longer wants this burden. Now, should your buddy have to ask your permission to unhook himself?

Did you volunteer for this procedure in the way a woman volunteers to get pregnant by having sexual relations?

__________________

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they’re not.” - Hillary Clinton

We are not talking about having a kidney removed, we are talking about aborting a separate life form created by TWO people. Two people should have a say in it.

But I still have the right to pay child support? Sorry, we could not disagree more on this.

At the point it is a zygote how exactly does one prove paternity?

__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.

__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.

__________________
Thanks, Trump for the civics lesson. We are learning so much about impeachment, the 25th Amendment, order of succession, nepotism, separation of powers, 1st Amendment, obstruction of justice, the emoluments clause, Logan Act, conflicts of interest, collusion, sanctions, oligarchs, money laundering and so much more.